Manager, R.P.M. High School, Panangatiri, Palakkad District v. Smt Usha Kumari A. and Others

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT:** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU** **WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF AUGUST 2014/5TH BHADRA, 1936** **WA.No. 1165 of 2014 () IN WP(C).5637/2012 -------------------------------------------** ## **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 5637/2012 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 25-07-2014** ## **APPELLANT(S)/4TH RESPONDENT:** **------------------------------------------------------** **THE MANAGER, R.P.M. HIGH SCHOOL, PANANGATIRI PALAKKAD DISTRICT - 678 506.** **BY ADVS.SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED SRI.M.SAJJAD** ## **RESPONDENT(S)/PETITIONER AND RESPONDNETS 1,3 AND 5 TO 7:** **--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------** **1. SMT.USHA KUMARI.A, AGED 44 YEARS D/O.ACHUTHAN, HIGH SCHOOL ASSISTANT (MATHS) R.P.M HIGH SCHOOL, PANANGATIRI POST PALAKKAD (RESIDING AT BALAKRISHNAN PANANGATTIRI - 678 506)** ## **2. THE SECRETARY** - **GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.** **3. THE DIRECTOR OF HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.** **4. THE REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR DIRECTORATE OF HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION BOARD KALOOR, ERNAKULAM - 682 017.** ## **5. SMT.DIVYA RAMACHANDRAN** ## **HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL TEACHER (COMPUTER APPLICATION) R.P.M HIGH SCHOOL PANANGATIRI, PALAKKAD DISTRICT - 678 506.** ## **6. SMT.K.P.INDHU** - **HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL TEACHER (COMPUTER APPLICATION) R.P.M. HIGH SCHOOL, PANANGATIRI PALAKKAD DISTRICT - 678 506.** **WA No.1165/14** **-2-** ## **7. SMT. BINDU C. PHILIP** **HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL TEACHER (COMPUTER APPLICATION) R.P.M. HIGH SCHOOL, PANANGATIRI PALAKKAD DISTRICT - 678 506.** **R6 & 7 BY SRI.K.MOHANAKANNAN R1 BY SRI.U.BALAGANGADHARAN R5 BY SRI.ELVIN PETER P.J. R2 TO 4 BY SR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.S.JAMAL** **THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27-08-2014, ALONG WITH WA. 1168/2014, WA. 1170/2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **WA NO.1165/14** ## **APPENDIX** ## **APPELLANT'S EXHIBITS** **ANNEXURE A1: TRUE COPY OF THE SENIORITY LIST OF TEACHERS AS ON 1.6.2012** **//True Copy//** **PA to Judge** **Rp** ## **ANTONY DOMINIC & DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, JJ. ================================ Writ Appeal Nos. 1165, 1168 & 1170 of 2014 =================================** ## **Dated this the 27[th] day of August, 2014** ## **J U D G M E N T** ## Antony Dominic, J. These writ appeals are filed challenging the common judgment of the learned single Judge in WP(C) Nos.5637/12 and 13995/12. WA No.1165/14 is filed by the Manager of R.P.M.High School, Panangatiri in Palakkad District where as WA Nos.1168 and 1170/14 are filed by the Higher Secondary School Teachers. 2. In so far as WP(C) No.5637/12 filed by Smt.Usha Kumari A., a HSA in the school in question is concerned, her grievance was that she had submitted an application for the post of HSST (Computer Science) in the 25% by transfer quota. According to her, though she satisfied all the qualifications prescribed, her candidature was rejected on the ground that she did not produce M.Sc (Computer Science) certificate evidencing her qualification and that one Smt.Divya Ramachandran was appointed to that post. It was challenging that appointment, she filed the writ petition. 3. It appears that in the meanwhile, the appellants in WA No.1168/14 were also appointed as HSST (English) and (Zoology) WA No.1165/14 & conn. cases **: 2 :** respectively. Their appointment was not approved. It is complaining of the above, they filed WP(C) No.13995/12. 4. The writ petitions were disposed of by a common judgment rendered on 25/7/14 along with WP(C) No.13106/12 which was filed by the aforesaid Smt.Divya Ramachandran seeking directions for approval of her appointment. In the judgment under appeal, the learned single Judge held that Ext.P3 in WP(C) No.5637/12 which was filed by Smt.Usha Kumari proved that she had acquired M.Sc in Computer Science as on the date of occurrence of vacancy and that therefore rejection of her candidature was illegal. On that basis, learned single Judge held that the appointment of Smt.Divya Ramachandran to the vacancy of HSST (Computer Science) was illegal and ordered that Smt.Usha Kumari shall be appointed to the post in question. Consequently, WP (C) No.13995/12 was disposed of directing that depending upon the order of approval passed in the case of Smt.Usha Kumari, the application of the Manager for approval of their appointment will also be considered. It is in the above background WA Nos.1165/14 and 1170/14 are filed by the Manager and respondents 6 and 7 WA No.1165/14 & conn. cases **: 3 :** respectively in WP(C) No.5637/12 and WA No.1168/14 has been filed by the petitioners in WP(C) No.13995/12. 5. We heard the learned counsel for the appellants, the learned Government Pleader and also the learned counsel appearing for Smt.Usha Kumari, the petitioner in WP(C) No.5637/12. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant in WA No.1165/14 contended that, as on 19/11/11, when the interview was held, Smt.Usha Kumari had not produced the certificates evidencing her qualification and that all that she produced was Ext.P3 produced in WP(C) No.5637/12. It is stated that this did not certify the acquisition of her qualification and it was therefore that her candidature was rejected. Learned counsel relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in _**Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay**_ _**v. Dr.Sushil V.Patkar**_ (AIR 1991 SC 1733) to contend that when candidature is rejected for failure to produce required certificates evidencing qualification, the Court should not interfere with the decision of the selection committee. 7. In the light of this contention now raised, the only question to be examined is whether Ext.P3 produced in WP(C) WA No.1165/14 & conn. cases **: 4 :** No.5637/12 proved that Smt.Usha Kumari was qualified as on the date of occurrence of the vacancy. Ext.P3 mentioned above is a computer print out evidencing the marks obtained by Smt.Usha Kumari in the final examination of M.Sc (Computer Science). Nobody had doubted the genuineness of this document and the judgment under appeal shows that after elaborate consideration of Ext.P3, the learned single Judge was fully satisfied that Ext.P3 was sufficient to prove the qualification possessed by Smt.Usha Kumari as on the date of occurrence of the vacancy. Having considered the matter in its entirety, we are not persuaded to take a view different from that of the learned single Judge and therefore we endorse the view taken by the learned single Judge that Ext.P3 sufficiently proved the qualification of Smt.Usha Kumari as on the date of occurrence of vacancy. 8. In so far as the judgment in _**Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay** (supra)_ is concerned, when the learned Judge was satisfied that Ext.P3 satisfied the requirements prescribed, he was fully justified in holding the rejection of the candidature of Smt.Usha Kumari illegal. In such a case, the principles laid down by WA No.1165/14 & conn. cases **: 5 :** the Apex Court in the judgment referred to above cannot be made applicable. 9. However, from the judgment under appeal, what we notice is that the learned single Judge ordered that Smt.Usha Kumari should be appointed to the post of HSST (Computer Science). Ext.R6(a) produced in WA No.1170/14 is the consolidated mark list of the selection committee which conducted the selection in question. That shows that while the four other candidates who appeared for the interview were awarded marks, in so far as Smt.Usha Kumari is concerned not only that she has not been awarded marks by any one of the members of the selection committee, but also it is stated that her candidature was rejected for non production of the required certificates. 10. Rule 5 of Chapter XXXII of KER provides that the appointing authority for the various category of posts shall be the Manager and as per the note to this rule, appointments to teaching post shall be made on the recommendation of a selection committee constituted in the manner as provided therein. As we have already seen, in so far as Smt.Usha Kumari is concerned, her WA No.1165/14 & conn. cases **: 6 :** candidature itself was rejected and in her case, no recommendation was made by the selection committee because her fitness to the post was not assessed by it due to rejection of her candidature. In such a situation, when the learned single Judge found that the rejection of her candidature is illegal, the proper order that should have been passed was to order that the selection committee shall consider the candidates afresh, assess their fitness for the post and on that basis, make a fresh recommendation on the basis of which the appointment should have been ordered to be made. In that view of the matter, we cannot approve the direction of learned single Judge requiring the Manager to appoint Smt.Usha Kumari for the post and accordingly the said direction is vacated. 11. We therefore direct that the Selection Committee shall consider the candidates afresh accepting Ext.P3 produced by Smt.Usha Kumari as proof of her qualification in M.Sc (Computer Science) and on that basis, assess the fitness of the candidates afresh. Accordingly, the selection committee shall make a fresh recommendation on the basis of which appointment to the post of HSST (Computer Science) shall be made by the Manager. WA No.1165/14 & conn. cases **: 7 :** 12. In the light of the above, in so far as WA No.1168/14 filed by the petitioners in WP(C) No.13995/12 is concerned, depending upon the outcome of the fresh process to be undertaken by the selection committee in terms of Rule 5 of Chapter XXXII KER, the matter will be considered afresh. The aforesaid process shall be completed as expeditiously as possible. Modifying the judgment of the learned single Judge to the above extent, these writ appeals are disposed of. Sd/- **ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE** Sd/- **DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU JUDGE** Rp //True Copy// PA to Judge